Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All-loving, all-merciful Christian God discriminates against the handicapped


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 214 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 09:49:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Feb 2013 09:49:44 GMT
Equally.
Hating something that probably doesn't exist seems like insanity ...

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 09:58:14 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Not sure I follow you. Certain atheists may disliked or indeed hate some (or indeed all) religions. Some may only extend that hatred to certain organised religions or whatever. I don't think they actually hate 'God' because they do not believe it to be any more than a man-made construct (this is the view I tend to take).

Posted on 22 Feb 2013 10:08:55 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:19:27 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"If it's insane to love something that doesn't exist, then surely it as just insane to hate the people who 'love' the non-existent thing."

The people exist, and it is possible to hate their actions.

-"Religion is based on the love of said non-existent being, ergo hating the religion is hating the being."

Or hating the idividuals and the institutions they represent?

-"You only have to read the comments on this forum to view the bitterness and hatred some posters hold towards religion, its followers and the respective deity. They are just irrational as the theist who blindly loves their god."

I thin you may have a problem suporting that, expressing criticism in posts is a long way from hatred, and neither have to directed towards an entity, the target is more usually the people themselves and their beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:25:16 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Feb 2013 10:26:34 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I would largely agree with you, especially if one hates someone else purely because they are religious, but that is a different thing to what you were saying previously anyway. However, I would disagree that hating the religious movement itself is exactly the same as hating the people who follow a religion.

Posted on 22 Feb 2013 10:41:30 GMT
Bellatori says:
I find all this talk of hate somewhat strange. As emotions go it is about the most pointless. It consumes energy and creates stress without anything useful in return. I can honestly say that I don't hate anything simply because anything that I might hate simply would not be worth the effort it would require. You deal with it one way or another (often by ignoring) and then move on.

My guess is that you don't really mean hate and that is simply hyperbole. At least I hope it is.

Can I point out also that I am not being virtuous here. A more accurate description would be lazy!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:44:44 GMT
Ian says:
What if your child had an imaginary friend who whispered to your child how horrible other people were because of the way they thought or acted. Especially the ones who didn't believe in your child's imaginary friend. What if your child told you how wonderful his/her imaginary friend was because he had the power to inflict misery on anybody he didn't like (so you better not say anything rude about your child's imaginary friend)? What if your child told you your neighbours were terrible people because his imaginary friend didn't like their lifestyle?

Does the imaginary friend exist?
Do you hate the imaginary friend?

(As I've said before in other forums; I don't hate the imaginary friend or the child. I feel sorry for the child who lives his life this way.)

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:45:31 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Yes, I try to go through life with that philosophy. If you hate someone or something you're the one who's effected and they're probably blissfully ignorant of your feelings. It's a little bit like road rage. Getting annoyed is only really impacting on you and raising your own stress levels. Of course it's easier said than done sometimes but it's not a bad way to try and live your life on the whole.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:47:36 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:48:06 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:49:08 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:52:57 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Is the OT not the word of God though? Did he have a change of mind? Is the whole of the OT to be discounted then?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 10:56:42 GMT
C. A. Small says:
SLR- any evidence for this nonsense?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 11:26:27 GMT
richard says:
i thought Jesus said he didn't come to change the law!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 11:29:37 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 12:58:10 GMT
Bellatori says:
Miss S. L. Richards says: "God loves ALL people"

Does he now? If he is so loving and compassionate why did he create the sick, the halt and the lame? Come to that why did he create such an imperfect world where suffering is the norm?

Epicurus is often quoted as saying...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 13:40:02 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"ahaha ok then. If you say so. Maybe you have certain people on ignore."

Who did you have in mind?

-"Maybe you just don't like admitting that it clearly is the case."

Clearly! Obviously! Weasel words Kodokushi.

-"It is very clear to tell the difference between criticism and hatred, and the majority of posts by certain folk most definitely fall under hate."

Certain folk? Who?

-"Of which they have on (rare) occasion admitted to hating anything that relates to religion"

Hating a religion is not the same as hating a deity. You can have valid reasons for hating an organisation, its rituals, its beliefs without holding any particular ire towards the object of their worship.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 13:52:37 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Feb 2013 13:43:06 GMT
george scott says:
Roger Swinburne:"Suppose that one less person had been burnt by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Then there would have been less opportunity for courage and sympathy...." (The Existence of God). He also,(according to Dawkins) attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble. (TGD p.89)
Epicurus 1 Theists 0 - and that's being generous.

Kodokushi has pointed out an error. It should read Richard Swinburne. Apologies to any Roger Swinburnes that may be out there.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 14:28:35 GMT
Ian says:
What's a "darwinism lecture"?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 14:40:21 GMT
Bellatori says:
"attempted to justify the Holocaust"

You have to admire people with this sort of mind set. I get an almost overwhelming desire to find a similar situation for them so they can demonstrate being "courageous and noble." Preferably for a significant time.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 22:03:40 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 22:47:38 GMT
george scott says:
DB so you accept and approve of the Hiroshima quote! Presumably you also accept, for example McGraths statement in The |Dawkins Delusion that Leviticus 25 prohibited slavery on compassionate grounds Lev25 actually instructs (you shall , not you may) the taking as slaves just about everyone except fellow-tribesmen.

Your manners at least keep company with your intelligence and integrity.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 23:01:18 GMT
DB says:
Blahdy blah
so there was slavery in egypt and many parts of the world. So we have had wars.
so we know about man's inhumanity to man.
Bad things happened and good things happened and still do.

When there are good things atheists see only man and science as the creator.
When there are bad things atheists see only god (who they don't believe in) as the creator.

not reasonable.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2013 23:18:52 GMT
george scott says:
DB Thank you for confirming my analysis of your abilities.
The point was, if you can read coherently, not the question of slavery, but the reliability of one of the more prominent members of the theological world, as you had implicitly questioned the veracity of Dawkins, without giving any justification.
If I were you, I would stop digging.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 09:29:06 GMT
C. A. Small says:
George- welcome to the twisted catholic world of Diane. If it isn't from a catholic source it isn't true and didn't happen.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  214
Initial post:  16 Feb 2013
Latest post:  25 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions